In Re Marriage of Wyatt

No. 05-010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2005 MT 320N
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:
JAYSON T. WYATT,
Petitioner and Appellant,
and
SHANNON J. HOPKINS WYATT,
Respondent and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Cascade, Cause No. ADR 04-131,
The Honorable Thomas M. McKittrick, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Tonja D. Schaff, Falcon, Lester & Schaff, P.C., Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
Terrance L. Toavs, Law Office of Terrance L. Toavs, Wolf Point, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: November 9, 2005
Decided: December 19, 2005
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice John Warner delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and
its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in this Court’s
quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 Jayson T. Wyatt (Jayson) appeals from an Order of the Eighth Judicial District Court,
Cascade County, dismissing his Petition for Dissolution of his marriage to Shannon J.
Hopkins Wyatt (Shannon), an enrolled member of the Fort Peck Tribes. After Jayson filed
this action for dissolution of marriage in District Court, Shannon filed a petition for divorce
in the Fort Peck Tribal Court. The District Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction
and it also concluded that the Fort Peck Tribal Court had at least concurrent jurisdiction with
the State of Montana over the marriage. The District Court declined to exercise its
jurisdiction and dismissed Jayson’s petition as a matter of comity. Jayson appealed. We
affirm.
¶3 The District Court held a hearing to determine the location of Shannon’s permanent
residence. She had been living in Great Falls since January 2000 to attend the University
of Great Falls, and she remained a student at the time of the petitions for dissolution. While
living in Great Falls, Shannon maintained a post office box in Poplar on the Fort Peck
Reservation as her permanent address, and her driver’s license listed this address. Shannon
also continued to register her vehicles on the Fort Peck Reservation, and she frequently
visited her family there. The District Court found that Shannon maintained her permanent
2
residence on the Fort Peck Reservation while living in Great Falls to further her education,
and she never formed an intention to give up this permanent residence.
¶4 Since the District Court found that Shannon was an enrolled member of the Fort Peck
Tribes whose permanent residence was on the Fort Peck Reservation, it concluded that the
Fort Peck Tribal Court had at least concurrent jurisdiction. These findings do satisfy the
requirements of the Fort Peck Code of Justice for vesting jurisdiction in the Fort Peck Tribal
Court. See Fort Peck Comprehensive Code of Justice, Title X. Family Code, Chapter 2.
Marriage, § 301.
¶5 We have determined to decide this case according to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our
1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum
opinions.
¶6 We review a district court’s conclusions of law to determine whether the court
correctly interpreted the law. Nielsen v. Brocksmith Land & Livestock, Inc., 2004 MT 101,
¶ 7, 321 Mont. 37, ¶ 7, 88 P.3d 1269, ¶ 7. We review a district court’s findings of fact to
determine if they are clearly erroneous, but if they are supported by substantial credible
evidence, we will not alter them absent an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Foster,
2004 MT 326, ¶ 9, 324 Mont. 114, ¶ 9, 102 P.3d 16, ¶ 9. We review a district court’s
decision to decline to exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of abstention to determine
whether the court properly interpreted the law governing state/tribal civil jurisdiction.
Nielsen, ¶ 7.
¶7 There is sufficient evidence in the record from which the District Court could find that
Shannon’s permanent residence was on the Fort Peck Reservation. While living in Great
3
Falls to attend the University of Great Falls, she maintained a post office box on the Fort
Peck Reservation as her permanent address, her driver’s license listed this address, she
registered her vehicles on the Fort Peck Reservation, and she frequently visited her family
there. Given this substantial evidence, we do not conclude that the District Court’s finding
was clearly erroneous.
¶8 Jayson does not argue that the District Court does not have concurrent jurisdiction
with the Fort Peck Tribal Court, but asserts that the District Court erred when it declined to
exercise jurisdiction as a matter of comity. We have previously deferred to the Northern
Cheyenne Appellate Court’s holding that the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court had
jurisdiction over a marriage dissolution between Northern Cheyenne tribal members residing
within the reservation on the basis of comity. In re Marriage of Limpy (1981), 195 Mont.
314, 318, 636 P.2d 266, 269. In considering a marriage dissolution where one party was a
member of the Blackfeet Tribe and the other was not, we referred to Limpy and, while noting
a lack of precedent on the issue, also suggested that the Blackfeet Tribal Court had
concurrent jurisdiction with Montana Courts over marriage and divorce. In re Marriage of
Wellman (1993), 258 Mont. 131, 135-36, 852 P.2d 559, 562.
¶9 There are no children of the marriage between these parties. The only asset of any
substance owned by either party is a house located on trust land within the exterior
boundaries of the Fort Peck Reservation. The house and debt thereon were acquired by
Shannon before the marriage in question. Jayson testified that he claims no interest in this
house. The parties present no argument concerning the distribution of the marital estate,
whether on or off of the reservation.
4
¶10 Given concurrent jurisdiction over the marriage by the Montana Courts and the Fort
Peck Tribal Court, this Court’s precedent deferring to Tribal Court jurisdiction in a similar
situation in Limpy, and the lack of any controversy concerning distribution of property which
is not located on the Fort Peck Reservation, we conclude that the District Court did not err
in dismissing Jayson’s petition for dissolution as a matter of comity.
¶11 Affirmed.
/S/ JOHN WARNER
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
5